Johnson and Johnson 2012 Annual Report Download - page 73

In December 2012, Therakos, Inc. (Therakos), formerly a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and part of the Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) franchise, received a letter from the civil division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania informing Therakos that the United States Attorney’s Office was investigating the sales
and marketing of UVADEX®(methoxsalen) and the UVAR XTS®System during the period 2000 to the present. The
United States Attorney’s Office requested that OCD and Johnson & Johnson preserve documents that could relate to the
investigation. Therakos was subsequently acquired by an affiliate of Gores Capital Partners III, L.P. OCD and Johnson &
Johnson retain certain liabilities that may result from the investigation for activity that occurred prior to the sale of Therakos,
and have taken appropriate steps to retain potentially relevant documents and will cooperate with the United States
Attorney’s Office’s investigation with respect to such activity.
In recent years, Johnson & Johnson has received numerous requests from a variety of United States Congressional
Committees to produce information relevant to ongoing congressional inquiries. It is the policy of Johnson & Johnson to
cooperate with these inquiries by producing the requested information.
GENERAL LITIGATION
Starting in July 2006, five lawsuits were filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by various
employers and employee benefit plans and funds seeking to recover amounts they paid for RISPERDAL®for plan
participants. In general, Plaintiffs allege that Johnson & Johnson and certain of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries engaged in
off-label marketing of RISPERDAL®in violation of the federal and New Jersey RICO statutes. In addition, Plaintiffs
asserted various state law claims. All of the cases were consolidated into one case seeking class action status, but shortly
thereafter, one action was voluntarily dismissed. In December 2008, the Court dismissed the actions of the four remaining
plaintiffs. In April 2010, those plaintiffs filed a new consolidated class action against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen, L.P.
(now Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.); and in March 2011, that action was dismissed. In April 2011, one of those plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That appeal was dismissed in July
2011.
In April 2009, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department
of Justice, Antitrust Division, requesting documents and information for the period beginning September 1, 2000 through
the present, pertaining to an investigation of alleged violations of the antitrust laws in the blood reagents industry. OCD
complied with the subpoena. In February 2011, OCD received a letter from the Antitrust Division indicating that it had
closed its investigation in November 2010. In June 2009, following the public announcement that OCD had received a
grand jury subpoena, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for
alleged price fixing. The various cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the District Court granted a
motion filed by Plaintiffs for class certification. OCD requested interlocutory review of the class certification decision, and
in October 2012, the Appellate Court granted OCD’s petition for interlocutory review.
In April 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by representatives of nursing home residents or their estates against Johnson & Johnson, Omnicare, Inc.
(Omnicare), and other unidentified companies or individuals. In February 2011, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
asserting that certain rebate agreements between Johnson & Johnson and Omnicare increased the amount of money spent
on pharmaceuticals by the nursing home residents and violated the Sherman Act and the California Business & Professions
Code. The second amended complaint also asserted a claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs sought multiple forms of
monetary and injunctive relief. Johnson & Johnson moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in March 2011. The
Court granted the motion in its entirety in August 2011, dismissing all claims asserted by Plaintiffs. In October 2011, the
Court dismissed the action with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in November 2011. In February 2012, Plaintiffs stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of the matter, with
prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case in its entirety in March 2012.
Starting in May 2010, multiple complaints seeking class action certification related to the McNeil recalls have been filed
against McNeil Consumer Healthcare and certain affiliates, including Johnson & Johnson, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of California, the Southern District
of Ohio and the Eastern District of Missouri. These consumer complaints allege generally that purchasers of various McNeil
medicines are owed monetary damages and penalties because they paid premium prices for defective medications rather
than less expensive alternative medications. All but one complaint seeks certification of a nation-wide class of purchasers of
these medicines, whereas one complaint, the Harvey case, seeks certification of a class of MOTRIN®IB purchasers in
Missouri. In October 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the consumer complaints, except
for the Harvey case, which was consolidated in March 2011, into one lawsuit: In re: McNeil Consumer Healthcare, et al.,
Johnson & Johnson 2012 Annual Report •65